Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

As i pointed out earlier if people are going to be paid minimum wage for this work then we might aswell just create the jobs and pay them ,this is going to be classed as voluntary work that the serial claimants will be forced to do in return for benefits (yes i see the contradiction:))

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

But we are stooping to the level of finding any excuse not to pay out to save money. if we weren't in this mess we probably wouldn't be thinking of ways to stop benefit money from being paid out.

We have to assume that these jobs will not have been done by somebody being paid to do them. then we have to think if these people are busy doing these then 'they' are stopping them from being able to look for work.

again, we have to assume that this will only be for those that have been on benefits for around 10 years, and not people who have been for a few months. or even suspected of working whilst claiming.

if they stuck to the original policy of not looking for work then no money, then nobody will get away with anything.
but I believe that they know that if they stuck to that there would be people who would have no choice but to rob and steal in order to survive.

these people are not stupid. nor are they soft. if they want money they won't care how they get it.

---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

Shouldn't that be 'people who don't want to work'?

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

If it's "compulsory" it cannot, by any definition, be classed as voluntary.

As I pointed out earlier given the minimum wage legislation and the effect that earnings will have on interdependant benefits (housing, childcare etc etc) this programme will end up costing the treasury more than it could ever possibly save.

It reads well to a certain demographic but it does not withstand much scrutiny.

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

YAY you finally get it ,we are in a mess so we have find ways to save money and the moral implication is to stop people thinking they can continue to claim benefits for no good reason


Most of the jobs that the benefit claimants will be asked to do will already be being done ,just at a much reduced rate ,for example we know get the street cleaners around our area once a month instead of once a fortnight with some additional "benefit volunteers" for want of a better phrase they will now get done more frequently ,nobody will lose their job ,and the claimants will be able to look for work in the 10 hours they get off a week ,or at week ends

not sure what the definition of long term unemployed is at the moment

For some "robbing and stealing to survive" means "robbing and stealing to get a better telly"

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

Yes it does ,the demographic being the ones over taxed to pay the 200billion bill ,but i accept that it will be a hard policy to implement correctly so it has the desired effect

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

I had it all the time. the goal is to exploit them by doing unpaid work which will save them money by not having to pay somebody to do it. and all in the name of punishment or well being. depending on who's asking.

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

I can picture now a load of fifty-something males, who can't get a job because of their age, in somewhere like Newcastle going out and clearing the litter, and then being injured on the scheme and unable to work for a little while.

It's quite possible that the poor parts of the nation will have some of the cleanest streets in the country; no jobs but the cleanest streets

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

This is the most pathetic idea that l have heard from this idiotic government.

The councils are making cutbacks galore, so how do they get the streets cleaned and graffiti cleaned - bingo, get the unemployed to do it, they are not stupid are they. What they should be doing is investing in getting work brought into this country, therefore taking the unemployed off the books.

There are some decent hard working people out there, who do not have a job, is the government going to tar them with the same job, and not only that there basic human right are effected, as it is there right to claim benefit.

What this stupid government have to do is shut the door on people coming in from other countries and taking all the jobs at a cheap price.

The laugh of all is that when you go for a job at the JC, they send you to an agency for the job, and they are making the money, not the worker.:mad:

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

shame i thought we were making progress ,they will be getting paid ,the benefits they get ,and if you take the JSB,HB, free prescriptions ,free dental and all the other freebies then they won't be far short of minimum wage for 30 hours

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

As the 'government' will be responsible for them whilst they are in their care. they would have to take them to the hospital if the claimant so wishes. they'd have to make sure that all are pampered so as to reduce the likelyhood of being sued on the no win no fee scheme :D

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

I'm afraid that your idea of Newcastle being poor is deluded ,you are subscibing to the "poor northeners" mentality that shows a distinct lack of understanding

personaly i can see a lot of career claimants crapping themselves if this policy comes to fruition ...ALL OVER THE COUNTRY NOT JUST THE "POOR PARTS"

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

If they were getting paid they'd get an extra £100 on top of their benefits. all the extras are irrelevant. they're paid for from taxes, which I and many others might say it's ok for me to pay. so who are they to say that I say otherwise?

as Arthur says. like it or not, claiming benefit is a right. it may have certain conditions added to it all the time (including this one) where it is believed that these are actually legal, and not just what they say?

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

I'm doing a temp job (no end date has been given), I have more or less been forced into it.

It is minimum wage, a drop of 50% of my previous salary.

The govenerment should heavily peanalise companies that close down UK sites and move overseas. This is what happened to me.

So I'm a high skilled work in an indusrtry that is still closing UK sites in favour of moving outsite UK.

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

absolute rubbish gary ,claiming benefits is most definitely not a right ,it is a privelidge born of a caring society

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

Actually, I was making allusions to parts of the country that currently have large numbers employed by the Government, as these people get made redundant they will move into the realms of the unemployed and if there are no jobs for these people eventually they will become long term unemployed and will fall under these plans

Re: Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour
 

It's there in the previous link - people with terminal illnesses being taken off benefits and put in a position whereby they are forced to work to survive. It may not be specific to picking up litter - and it may be uncomfortable reading for you given your stated position - but it is a fact.

Legally is the key here, obviously.

"Not wanting to" work and "not being able to work" are two very different things. Not wanting to work is hard for any third party to discern. However not being able to work is, by comparison, fairly easy to identify.

Forcing people to work for four weeks will not change the mindset of those who do not want to work. They will simply comply with the requirement (costing the treasury more money) and then revert to form. It will do them no discernable good.

It is a pyrrhic victory of sorts - at best.

Forcing people who are genuinely not fit to work to work for four weeks serves no purpose and represents the potential threat of an even greater long term fiscal cost.

Yes, you see the difference in your example is that he achieved what he did at his own volition - he wasn't "forced" by a third party. He also acted primarily due to his own acknowledgement of the onset of mental health issues (low self estreem and depression).

Some people are not that lucky.

As I stated earlier I acknowlewdge that there are vast numbers of people in receipt of benefits who should not, ordinarlily, be in receipt of those benefits. There are very real problems with this proposal by Duncan Smith and I feel he is playing to the gallery rather than trying to get to the root causes of the problem. Perceived entitlement and fraudulent claims being but two of those issues.

I'll people should be cared for, not stigmatized and lumped together with ner do wells who exploit a system.